Bey v. United States Postal Service
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 3 MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by United States Postal Service - 1. The defendants Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 3 ), is GRANTED. 2. On or before March 3, 2014, the plaintiff shall file a complaint in thiscase, and serve this complaint upon the defendant. SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on February 11, 2014. (kjn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHEMORAT GAREEM BEY,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, :
:
Defendants.
:
Civil No. 1:14-CV-3
(Judge Rambo)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I.
Statement of the Case
The background of this case is as follows:
The plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a
praecipe for a summons in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County on
December 5, 2013. This praecipe for summons is not a complaint, and contained no
factual averments, or intelligible claims. Rather, it simply identified the party that
Bey intended to sue, naming the United States Postal Service as the defendant, and
demanding payment of $54,004.14. (Doc.1)1
It should be noted that in Pennsylvania, a plaintiff can begin a lawsuit by
either filing a complaint or a praecipe for a writ of summons. See Pa. R.C.P. 1007.
In the latter situation, the defendant can compel the plaintiff to file a complaint by
filing a praecipe with the prothonotary pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1037(a).
1
1
The United States has now removed this case to federal court, (Doc. 1), and
filed a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. (Docs. 2 and 3) Bey responded to this motion by filing an amended
“declaration” which states that Bey is a freemen and a free inhabitant of Dauphin
County; alleges that the IRS executed a Notice of Levy in 2004 and seized
$54,004.14; and asserts that this nine year old levy was improper because Bey “was
not and never involved in cotton and distilled spirits.” (Doc. 6) Notably lacking from
this “declaration” was anything linking the sole named defendant, the United States
Postal Service, in any culpable fashion to this alleged conduct. (Id.)
Because we find this response to be inadequate to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, for the reasons set forth below, the motion for more definite
statement (Doc. 2), will be granted, and the plaintiff will be directed to file a proper
complaint.
II.
Discussion
Unlike state practice, which permits the initiation of a lawsuit through the mere
filing of a praecipe, federal practice requires more and demands that a plaintiff set
forth the allegations he may have against others in a complaint. In assessing the
adequacy of complaint, the Supreme Court has advised trial courts that they must:
2
[B]egin by identifying pleadings that because they are no more than
conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be
supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and
conclusions. Rather, a complaint must recite factual allegations sufficient to raise
the plaintiff’s claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation. As the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated when assessing the
adequacy of a complaint:
District courts should conduct a two-part analysis. First, the factual and
legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must
accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may
disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a District Court must then
determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to
show that the plaintiff has a “plausible claim for relief.” In other words,
a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief.
A complaint has to “show” such an entitlement with its facts.
Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210-11.
In addition to these pleading rules, a civil complaint must comply with the
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure which defines what
a complaint should say and provides that:
3
(a) A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain (1) a short and
plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the
court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which
may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and
conclusions. Rather, a pro se plaintiff’s complaint must recite factual allegations
which are sufficient to raise the plaintiff’s claimed right to relief beyond the level of
mere speculation, set forth in a “short and plain” statement of a cause of action. Thus,
it is well-settled that: “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a
complaint contain ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief,’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that each averment be ‘concise, and
direct,’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1).” Scibelli v. Lebanon County, 219 F. App’x 221, 222
(3d Cir. 2007).
In a case such as this, where a plaintiff has not yet stated any articulable claims
against the defendants he names in a lawsuit, the vehicle for gaining an understanding
of the plaintiff’s claims is a motion for more definite statement, made under Rule
12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(e) provides in part that: “A
party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive
pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot
4
reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive
pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the
court orders a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after
notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike the pleading
or issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
Here the defendants have requested that the Court order the plaintiff to make
a more definite statement of his claims against these defendants, and we find that this
case aptly:
highlight[s] the particular usefulness of the Rule 12(e) motion for a more
definite statement. Under Rule 12(e), a defendant may move for a more
definite statement “[i]f a pleading ... is so vague or ambiguous that a
party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). The Rule 12(e) “motion shall point out the defects
complained of and the details desired.” Id. When a complaint fashioned
under a notice pleading standard does not disclose the facts underlying
a plaintiff's claim for relief, the defendant cannot reasonably be expected
to frame a proper, fact-specific . . . defense. . . . . The Rule 12(e) motion
for a more definite statement is perhaps the best procedural tool
available to the defendant to obtain the factual basis underlying a
plaintiff's claim for relief.
Thomas v. Independence Tp., 463 F.3d 285, 301 (3d Cir. 2006)
Indeed, this case cries out for a more definite statement of the plaintiff’s claims.
The plaintiff’s pleadings are “so vague or ambiguous that the [defendant] cannot
reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). In fact, the plaintiff still has
5
not alleged any facts, or asserted any legal claims against the defendant. Instead, the
plaintiff has merely identified these parties as putative defendants without any
explanation of the legal or factual bases for his complaint.
The time has now come for the plaintiff to move beyond labels and assert facts
which articulate a legal claim. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for a more
definite statement will be granted, and the plaintiff is ordered as follows:
III.
Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.
The defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 3), is
GRANTED.
2.
On or before March 3, 2014, the plaintiff shall file a complaint in this
case, and serve this complaint upon the defendant.
3.
The plaintiff’s complaint must recite factual allegations which are
sufficient to raise the plaintiff’s claimed right to relief beyond the level
of mere speculation, contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), set
forth in averments that are “concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1).
4.
This complaint must be a new pleading which stands by itself as an
adequate complaint without reference to any other pleading already
6
filed. Young v. Keohane, 809 F. Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992).
The complaint should set forth plaintiff's claims in short, concise and
plain statements, and in sequentially numbered paragraphs. It should
name proper defendants, specify the offending actions taken by a
particular defendant, be signed, and indicate the nature of the relief
sought. Further, the claims set forth in the complaint should arise out of
the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences, and they should contain a question of law or fact common
to all defendants.
5.
The Court further places the plaintiff on notice that failure to comply
with this direction may result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to
Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also notifies
the plaintiff that, as a litigant who has sought leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, his complaint may also be subject to a screening review by the
Court to determine its legal sufficiency. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
SO ORDERED, this 11th day of February, 2014.
S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?